Language Models as Philosophical Thinking Tools: Opportunities and Challenges

핵심 개념

Language models can potentially serve as tools to support and enhance critical thinking in philosophy, but current models lack key capabilities that make them ineffective for this purpose.

초록

The article explores the potential for language models (LMs) to serve as critical thinking tools, particularly in the context of philosophy. It begins by highlighting how LMs have been used to accelerate and automate various cognitive tasks, but questions whether they can truly support deeper, more reflective forms of thinking that are central to philosophy.

The authors use philosophy as a case study, interviewing 21 professional philosophers to understand their thinking processes and views on current LMs. They find that philosophers do not find LMs to be useful critical thinking tools for two main reasons:

1. LMs are too neutral, detached, and nonjudgmental, often commenting on ideas in abstract and decontextualized ways. Philosophers value tools that provide substantive and well-defended perspectives, which current LMs lack.

2. LMs are too servile, passive, and incurious, restricting the variety of intellectual interactions possible. Philosophers find value in developing their own lines of inquiry in conversation and through texts, which current LMs fail to support.

The authors propose the "selfhood-initiative" model to characterize the key attributes that make a tool useful for critical thinking. This model explains why philosophers find conversations with other philosophers and reading philosophical texts more helpful than current LMs.

Using this model, the authors then describe three potential roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools: the Interlocutor (high selfhood, high initiative), the Monitor (low selfhood, high initiative), and the Respondent (high selfhood, low initiative). These roles could help address the limitations of current LMs and better support the kind of reflective, questioning, and conceptually challenging work that is central to philosophy.

The article also discusses how exploring the use of LMs as critical thinking tools raises interesting metaphilosophical questions and could potentially help address certain biases and limitations within the philosophical discipline. Finally, it outlines key technical and interaction design challenges that would need to be addressed to develop LMs as effective critical thinking tools.

통계

None

인용구

"But I like the inconveniences." — "We don't," responds the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably." — "But I don't want comfort," John gasps. "I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
"It [conversations with LMs] ends up being unproductive and unsatisfying... they don't feel like persons because their language is often so bland and impersonal, non-Socratic, generic... they're boring"
"It's a question-answer platform. It won't follow up with a "what do you think?" "I'm a little puzzled, how it could be?" "Oh gosh, how does it work?" You can't have a conversation with [an LM] except one which is like an interview."

핵심 통찰 요약

Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools

by Andre Ye,Jar... 게시일 arxiv.org 04-09-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.04516.pdf

더 깊은 질문

If LMs could be developed to engage in more substantive philosophical reasoning, how might this change the nature and practice of philosophy as a discipline?

If Language Models (LMs) were enhanced to engage in more substantive philosophical reasoning, it could potentially revolutionize the field of philosophy. Currently, philosophers rely on human-to-human interactions and textual analysis to develop and challenge ideas. However, with advanced LMs acting as Interlocutors, Monitors, and Respondents, the nature and practice of philosophy could undergo significant transformations.

Enhanced Idea Generation: LMs could stimulate novel ideas and perspectives, pushing philosophers to explore unconventional paths of thought. This could lead to a broader range of philosophical inquiries and potentially uncover new philosophical paradigms.

Diverse Perspectives: LMs could offer diverse viewpoints and challenge preconceived notions, encouraging philosophers to consider a wider array of arguments and counterarguments. This could foster a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to philosophical discourse.

Efficiency and Accessibility: With LMs as critical thinking tools, the process of philosophical inquiry could become more efficient and accessible. Philosophers could engage in deeper reflection and analysis at a faster pace, leading to accelerated progress in the field.

Metaphilosophical Reflection: The use of LMs could prompt philosophers to reflect on the nature of philosophical inquiry itself. Questions about the role of technology in shaping philosophical discourse and the boundaries of human vs. machine intelligence could become central to philosophical discussions.

In essence, the integration of advanced LMs into philosophical practice could enrich the discipline by offering new perspectives, accelerating idea generation, and challenging traditional modes of thinking.

If LMs could be developed to engage in more substantive philosophical reasoning, how might this change the nature and practice of philosophy as a discipline?

The biases and limitations of current philosophical methods and practices could be both challenged and reinforced by the use of LMs as critical thinking tools. Here's how:

Challenging Biases: LMs, if designed to engage in substantive philosophical reasoning, could potentially challenge human biases inherent in traditional philosophical discourse. By providing neutral and objective perspectives, LMs may help philosophers recognize and overcome their own biases, leading to more balanced and inclusive philosophical analyses.

Reinforcing Biases: On the other hand, LMs themselves are not immune to biases. If the training data used to develop these LMs contains biases, they may inadvertently reinforce existing biases in philosophical reasoning. This could lead to a perpetuation of certain philosophical perspectives or the exclusion of marginalized voices in philosophical discourse.

Limitations in Interpretation: LMs, while powerful tools, may struggle with nuanced philosophical concepts that require deep contextual understanding and subjective interpretation. This limitation could hinder the ability of LMs to engage in complex philosophical debates that rely on subtle reasoning and nuanced arguments.

Ethical Considerations: The use of LMs in philosophy raises ethical considerations regarding authorship, intellectual property, and the boundaries of human-machine collaboration. Philosophers may need to navigate these ethical challenges to ensure the integrity and authenticity of philosophical inquiry.

In summary, while LMs have the potential to challenge biases and limitations in philosophical practices, their use also introduces new ethical and interpretational challenges that must be carefully considered in the pursuit of more substantive philosophical reasoning.

What deeper connections might exist between the ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying both philosophical inquiry and the development of advanced AI systems?

The ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying philosophical inquiry and the development of advanced AI systems are deeply interconnected, revealing profound insights into the nature of knowledge, reality, and intelligence. Here are some key connections:

Nature of Reality: Both philosophical inquiry and AI development grapple with questions about the nature of reality. Philosophers explore ontological questions about the existence of entities, while AI systems rely on epistemological assumptions to model and understand the world. The intersection of these inquiries raises fundamental questions about what can be known and how knowledge is constructed.

Knowledge Representation: Philosophical epistemology examines how knowledge is acquired, justified, and represented. Similarly, AI systems rely on epistemological frameworks to process and interpret data, raising questions about the nature of knowledge representation in both disciplines. The parallels between philosophical theories of knowledge and AI algorithms shed light on the complexities of cognition and understanding.

Ethical Implications: Both philosophical inquiry and AI development confront ethical dilemmas related to decision-making, consciousness, and moral agency. The ontological assumptions about the nature of the self and the epistemological considerations about ethical reasoning intersect in discussions about AI ethics and the implications of AI systems on society.

Agency and Autonomy: Philosophical debates about free will, determinism, and agency intersect with AI research on autonomy, self-learning systems, and intelligent decision-making. The ontological assumptions about the nature of agency and the epistemological considerations about autonomous systems reveal deep connections between philosophical inquiry and AI development.

By exploring the ontological and epistemological assumptions that underpin both philosophical inquiry and the development of advanced AI systems, we uncover profound connections that illuminate the nature of knowledge, reality, and intelligence in profound and thought-provoking ways.